[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible GFDL compromise



On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:11:57 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev <fedor@earth.crust.irk.ru> wrote:
> >> 	Exactly, I still not see any non-stupid demonstration of the
> >> contrary. I prefer not to state anything else.
> 
> >My $HOME is on an encrypted filesystem. If I have any GFDL
> >documents on that filesystem, I'm in violation of the license.
> 
> 	It is not a violation of license to _have_ GFDL documents
> anywhere. I already discuss this example in all details.

Could you point me to a URL of such a discussion? I'm afraid I must have
missed it.

> >If I'm on a shared, multi-user system, I must leave any directories a
> >GFDL document is in as world-readable; to restrict permissions would be
> >to use a technical measure to restrict the further reading of the
> >document.
> 
> 	Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock
> the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document
> from your desktop. Get real!
> 
> 	GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received
> work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to
> someone. But, ever regardless of particular terms of license it is
> clear from the law, that you can have any obligations only to the
> _legitimate_ recipient of a copy of work. If someone get a copy by
> the means, which is illegal itself, without your will, consent and
> ever awareness, this can't create for you any obligations to him.

"of the copies you *make or distribute*"

Emphasis mine. The language is pretty clear.

Attachment: pgpbomgXPHnit.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: